1100 PARK LANE ASSOCIATES v. Feldman, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2008)

Citation: 1100 PARK LANE ASSOCIATES v. Feldman, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2008)
Parent Document: 1100 PARK LANE ASSOCIATES v. Feldman, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2008)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2008-02-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2279577/1100-park-lane-associates-v-feldman/ ↗

Full Text

959 chars

On May 13, 2005, the Feldmans received an e-mail from Seigel stating he had not received the Addendum, and reiterating that the sublet was approved conditioned upon his receipt of the signed Addendum. He stated: “Consequently, the sublet has not been approved. I will take action unless I receive the Addendum immediately.” Levis and the Feldmans notified Seigel that Levis had handed the Addendum to the doorman in the usual manner. Seigel responded that the mail had been checked, but the Addendum had not been found, and that the Feldmans should “[t]ake care of this immediately.” Jennifer Foote-Feldman delivered another copy of the fully executed Addendum to Seigel on May 25, 2005, which he acknowledged by e-mail on that date. At no time did Seigel state or imply that the signature of anyone other than the Feldmans and Levis was necessary for approval of the sublease or that the Addendum needed to be signed or approved by anyone other than himself.

Other Sections in This Document (227)

Full Text